General Is Said To Want To Join '04 Race (NYT: Wesley Clark)

[VolcanoJen]

I debated whether to post this in LBN or not, as it is largely speculative, but there is some new and newsworthy information in here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/28/politics/28CLAR.html?ex=1062648000&en=09e8d2119f8008fd&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Excerpt:

Whether he does (run), his friends said, will be determined by his instincts and a firm assessment of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, whose early success has come in part through criticism of White House strategies in Iraq that are every bit as strong as General Clark's.

While General Clark has consistently maintained that he has not yet made up his mind, his friends said a major obstacle has been cleared — family approval. They said his wife, Gert, who had initially expressed reservations, now favors his running.

"He is going to do it," said another of General Clark's friends. "He's just going back and forth as to when" to announce.

<snip>

A possible date for an announcement is Sept. 19, when General Clark, who has been highly critical of Bush administration foreign policy, is scheduled to deliver a speech at the University of Iowa. The subject is "The American Leadership Role in a Changing World."

emphasis added by VolcanoJen

[Cush]

1. Sept 19?

he kept saying within 7 - 10 days. I think the next debate is the first week of September, not sure if it would be wise to miss it.

[madmax]

2. Thank you, Gert!!!

[tedoll78]

3. Please let it be in September!

All of these candidates announcing that month, and with the huge shadow of the CA recall.. the media attention he'll get will be reduced..

(thinking aloud here about strategery.)

[RamboLiberal]

4. I'm leaning slightly that he won't run

But that gut feeling is only 51-49.

Whether he does, his friends said, will be determined by his instincts and a firm assessment of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, whose early success has come in part through criticism of White House strategies in Iraq that are every bit as strong as General Clark's.

I wonder if Deans Big Mo this past week in numbers in NH and elsewhere, the Sleepless tour and the money raising will lead Clark not to run.

The Dean campaign is canny. If I was them I'd be in some serious talks with Clark in the next week convincing him to throw his support behind Dean or at least behind the Dems with the promise you get first shot at the VP slot if Dean wins the nod.

[grasswire]

5. I saw somewhere tonight....

....that Clark was asked if he had considered the vp slot and he said no.

[VolcanoJen]

7. A handful of telling Clark quotes from Buchanan & Press

Here are two quotes from this week's Buchanan & Press appearance that speak volumes, or, maybe I'm reading too much into them:

Bill Press: The first issue is, is General Clark going to run for President? Are you a guy who would run away from a fight?

Wesley Clark: I never have.

Press: General, I have to tell you, among Democrats, what I hear more and more, all the time now, is the perfect ticket, Howard Dean/Wesley Clark. Do you accept?

Clark: Well, that's an issue that, just, it hasn't even crossed my mind yet. For me, the decision is to enter the race or not. If I enter the race, I'll be entering the race because I believe that I have qualities of leadership that the American people would need and appreciate. That's all, that's the motivation for entering the race. If I choose to do so, it has nothing to do with any sort of political gamesmanship.

I'm just not convinced Clark is interested in the underticket.

[Pastiche423]

12. That sounds about right

Clark's ego would not permit it.

[Cush]

15. well

by waiting so long, he's allowing the other candidates to get ahead.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. Speculative or Not, THIS IS F'IN COOL!

I mean hell, it's ALL speculation right now, so why not? God, I feel like a ping-pong ball! The news about his wife supposedly approving is HUGE!

What say you, Pepperbelly! :-)

DTH

[hey2370]

8. Why do we need a general?

I don't understand why we need a candidate with no legislative experience who has a tough time defining his preferred political party. I don't understand the people who say that Clark is the only candidate that could possibly win Southern votes and therefore he is the Dems only shot at beating Bush.

If the Dems need the political equivalent of a "Perfect Storm" to beat the incompetent and untrustworthy Bush, there is something seriously wrong with the Democratic Party. Dems are wasting their time if they are trying to appeal to people who find it difficult to decide between Bush and someone with capability instead of the voters who elected Al Gore.

[lanlady]

9. I'm delighted--

-although this will open up a big slug fest between Clark and Dean supporters. I'm in the Dean camp but would switch to Clark in a heartbeat if he stood a better chance of defeating Bush (which will probably be the case).

My staunch Republican acquaintances turn pale at the mention of Clark's name in the running. I'm not exaggerating, they're really AFRAID of the prospect of Bush vs Clark.

[RedEarth]

13. I believe Clark..

is the one candidate that has an excellent chance to beat Bush. While I would vote for any candidate on the Democratic ticket, Clark seems to be the one that would appeal to a larger segment of the voting public.

I have actually heard some repub friends indicate they would srongly consider voting for Clark if he were to run. They too are fed up with a lot of what b... has done, however, they wouldn't consider voting for any of the other Democratic candidates.

My main objective is to get rid of the evil doer b.....

[On the Road]

10. While I Like Clark,

I think he may have waited too long this time. Past nominations are a poor guide. The process is so front-ended that the race is half over. I think that if Clark does enter, he'll have a hard time getting traction. If he wins, though, I would enthusiastically support him.

[callous taoboy]

27. Clinton didn't jump in

until October.

[Trek234]

42. You forget the fact

That Clinton had been campaiging/money collecting long before the announcement. He also had a history as a politician which made it all the easier.

Clark will be starting from practicaly nothing - not even a complete position list, or even an officialy declared party. (for a candidate for president of the US this late in the game this is unacceptable IMO)

[LimpingLib]

11. Ill leave the party if he is nominated.

He is the one who fought hard to bomb civilian infrastructure in Yugoslavia. He wanted to blow up all 44 bridges in Belgrade plus tunnels and of coasre during the cold months the electricity was blown out on purpose (make civilians take cold showers in ZERO degree weather).

Its was totally unesessary and most in the coalition were against it and Clinton didnt even really consider it till Clark got the " bright idea" . All it takes in one rotton apple in a high position of power like Clark and all standards of decency are thrown out.

Id almost take Liebermann over him.

[davidinalameda]

14. well if he is nominated

don't let the door hit you on the way out

if you haven't noticed lately, there are few standards of decency currently in our federal government.

Clark may be the candidate we need to beat Bush. Would you rather have Bush for four more years? Ask yourself that before you leave.

[LimpingLib]

17. So tell me.......................

..... which of Clarks positions inspire such strong support in you the most?

And just so you dont feel like a fool for 30 minutes thinking about which parts of the Clark platform have you so hard up Ill go ahead and cut to the chase and mention that nobody really knows much of where he stands .

Its John McCain all over again. I saw music artists on TV in late 2000 who luke warmly supported Gore againt Bush and their reasoning was the gun and abortion choice issue which was described as the 2 most important issues by a particluar male musician (sorry i dont know his name) . He then went on to beg McCain to run as an indipendent and said he would strongly support McCain. AMAZING absolutilly amazing . Like a true Lemming he sang the phraises of McCain while making it clear that he marched in support (as per the medias request)of the man yet apparantly didnt realize McCain was unalterably opposed to the stance he described as his 2 most important (abortion choice rights and gun control).

I already refuse to support the little general because what little I know about him I find particularly disgusting (try and catch the Yugoslavia programming on the Discovery / New York Times digital cable channel ). For all I know he could hold legions of abhorrant positions on the issues but Im sure people will still march to his drumbeat .

If a party is going to march right off a cliff then I ill gladly step aside and watch and pray the nation doesnt plunge any further than it already has these past 4 years.

[davidinalameda]

32. my first priority is getting Bush out

and that's my only priority

Here are some of Clark's positions and I do support them

--The United States has an active role to play in the world, especially in preserving and extending our core values around the globe; however, we must still balance our actions and convictions with the ideals and opinions of other nations.

--However, to carry out our responsibilities around the world, strong multilateral relationships are critical; the United States cannot always 'go it alone'.

--Working productively with America's allies is critical to winning the war against terrorism.


--The United States needs to keep homeland security and the war against terrorism at the top of our list of national priorities; we can't be distracted by other entanglements, including Iraq, that might divert our attention.

--Protecting civil liberties and reexamining the PATRIOT Act

--Pro-choice and pro-affirmative action

--Pro-environment

--Sound economic policy and a rejection of the Bush Administration tax cuts

--Call to welcome every American, regardless of sexual orientation, to our armed forces" should be heeded by the nation's military establishment.




Yeah, I know these are all nice generalities but guess what, he isn't a candidate yet, and we don't know if he will be or not.

You can stand by and watch Bush get elected but then I hope you realize that you were part of the problem and not the solution.

[concord]

43. A good agenda, a decent man, however ...

it bothers me that he has taken up the "war on terror" baton, which in my opinion is simply a money machine for the chosen few.

I think he would make a hell of a VP or Sec of State, under Dean :)

I do agree though that if this guy gets the nomination, he has my vote.

ANYONE but bush.

[LimpingLib]

19. Instead of blindly salivating over this man...

...we should be asking him a few questions.

Number 1 General do you understand the average person in this world only makes about $3000 per year ?

Number 2 General how can we afford to spend $400 billion per year on bombs and missles?

Number 3 How can we justify having spent $30 billion to blow up Yugoslavia and how can a nation with so little of GDP as Yugoslavia afford to rebuild its economy when $50 billion in infrastructures was destroyed with many delicate civilian sectors hit the hardest at you insistance?

Number 4 What are you plans for rebuilding nations we destroy? How much money do you suggest we aid Yugoslavia in picking up the pieces from the ashes of their ravaged homeland?

Number 5 What are your long termgoals in helping to grow the US and world economy?

[VolcanoJen]

23. LimpingLib, you bring up some provocative points, but...

... I must add a few facts.

Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal, homicidal maniac, operating in the heart of Europe, where many of our interests lie. General Clark did not make the decision to get involved in the Kosovo and Serbian conflicts. Remember, back then (and it wasn't so long ago, March of 1999 if memory serves) the international community opposed Kosovo-Albanian efforts at independence, but Milosevic's increasingly violent campaign turned the tide. Like a good military man, Clark executed the orders he was given, without question, and NATO suffered nary a casualty. Even after the NATO strikes, Milosevic resisted leaving his leadership, even though he was defeated in a democratic election in 2000. Today, Milosevic is in the Hague and the former Yugoslavia consists of Serbia and Montenegro, two self-governing democracies, with Kosovo remaining as a UN protectorate. I'd have to give Clark and NATO high marks on their dictator-removing and nation-building efforts. I'd certainly grade them higher than the Bush Adminstrations efforts at "democracy" in an unstable region.

I supported the efforts to rid the world of this madman then, and I think the record shows it was a fine decision, and expertly executed.

Regardless of how you feel about Clark's potential presidential ambitions, I feel strongly that he was an excellent General, and that the dedication of his entire adult career to the service of the United States is honorable and admirable.

[LimpingLib]

24. Clark was the one who changed the bombing strategy.

Nobody else even wispered in his ear. It was his and his idea alone to start bombing precious civilian resources . Its all documented . Cant be blamed on anybody else. It also hurt the coalition unity . It was shortsighted. And I think attacks on civilian infrastructure (economic sanctions included IMO)is terrorism plain and simple. In Japan we nuked not military targets but made it a point to scare civilians with a barberic "demonstration" of our power. We made a demonstration not in a sparsly populated area but tried to hit the average family in Japan where it would do the worst damage . The origonal terrorist attack (we invented terrorsim )was infact one where advanced WMDs were used on a mainly civilian population . Clark didnt do anything quite like deliberatly burning women and children alive but he did urge the fellow military decision makers in the Yugoslavia conflict to use cluster bombes and the like.

I frankly am tired of no holds barred military policy . And I want every person who supports that type of policy to anwser the question of where the money is going to come from to rebuild the decades of progress that get blown away in nations we bomb. Not to mntion the fact that war should be a last resort to begin with buts thats an entirely different matter entirely.

General Clark needs to demonstrate to me that universal college education and health care can be afforded before we spend even a nickle over $200 billion on our military (which would still be higher than the next 5 nations military budgets combined though far short of our current $370 billion budget before Iraq costs make it well over $400 billion).

[VolcanoJen]

28. Again, your arguments are very convincing, but I feel that we...

... differ on priorities.

We, as a nation, are at war, whether we like it or not. I feel confident that a man who has dedicated his entire career to the service of his country, in uniform, would be less trigger-happy to send our young men and women into immoral and unnecessary wars. Nobody knows better about the dangers of war than a man who has seen combat, just like General Clark has.

Remember when Chimpy insisted that he's been to war, so he doesn't want to send anyone to war? As if...! At least when Clark tells me he's seen war, I freaking believe him.

I'm sure that if Clark throws his hat into the fray, we'll argue the Kosovo action over and over. I agree wholeheartedly with you that universal health care and education should be our priorities, but, since they are clearly not (even Clinton did little to advance this agenda), I'd so much rather have a man like Clark in the people's White House than Chimpy. It depends on what the button-pushing issue of the 2004 election will be, and that remains to be seen, but if the issue is war, then, well, Clark's my guy.

In due time, I'm certain Clark will clarify his positions on issues that concern progressives. Until then, I'm willing to take a wait-and-see attitude, and I'm interested and intrigued in the ideas this proven American leader has.

[Pastiche423]

29. Universal healthcare and education

are NOT our priorities?

Who the hell are "our"?

You may get off on war, but the majority of Americans are much more concerned about the healthcare and education of their familes.

I can not believe you made that statement!

Why are you trying to sell others on playing by rethug rules?

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!

What we should fear, is more of the same - ruling by FEAR!

[VolcanoJen]

30. You're right, Pastiche423, but I'm being a realist here.

OF COURSE progressives have different priorities than conservatives. That's why our DU Boards exist, and they serve us well. And OF COURSE my personal priorities are in line with yours.

However, the 2004 election isn't about us, it's about everybody. And unfortunately, Bush has been relatively successful in framing our priorities into ones of fear and fright. I say, fuck 'em, let's beat 'em at their own stupid game. And then we'll rewrite the rules and turn this nation around. Until we get the White House back, though, our priorities will be moot. Look at the gelding Democrats in Congress for further illustration.

I apologize if my focus on the '04 general election has forced me into this position. But I'm clearly on the "Anyone But Bush" bandwagon; hell, I'm freaking driving that bus, seriously.

I want to listen to Clark, and I want to give him a chance. What is so wrong about that? If he says he's one of us, then I'll give him the opportunity to make his case. I'm completely undecided about the Dem Primary right now, but at any rate, Wesley Clark has impressed me as a leader, and I feel that Americans crave real leadership so much right now, he's got a realistic shot of dethroning the Unelected Chimp. I'm willing to hear him out, and I don't think it's too late for him to convince me.

Please, Pastiche, don't be upset with me, and don't feel as though I'm throwing in the towel. I'm doing anything but. It's difficult to put into words sometimes, but please trust that my opinions and statements here on our DU Boards are focused on the big picture.

Thank you very much for listening,
Jennifer

[Pastiche423]

36. "...let's beat 'em at their own stupid game."

is playing right into their hands and playing by the rules they have set.

" Look at the gelding Democrats in Congress for further illustration."

The "gelding Democrats" agreed w/them during the mid-terms because they were afraid of being called unpatriotic. Did that work? NO!

We can beat them using OUR rules. We don't have to continue to let them lead. That is only showing fear that we are not confident in our own ideology.

Who created the "War on Terrorism? Think hard about your answer. Who created the rules and why?

By buying into "national security is our top priority", you have allowed whistle ass and his fellow whistlers to control how you think.

IMHO, what most Americans want, is a leader that will begin to heal our country. What we need is a leader that will address the joblessness, the lack of healthcare for millions of Americans, our sick economy and national budget.

If you want me to trust a man w/no governing experience, w/no healthcare experience, w/no budgeting experience and a man that will not say he is either a Democrat or that he is running, forgive me if I do not trust your opinion.

[VolcanoJen]

37. Clark wouldn't back down from a fight, and he wouldn't let...

.... anyone call him unpatriotic. Unfortunately, the gelding Democrats in Congress have done just that. And yes, they're geldings, and yes, they've failed us.

I'm so completely uninspired by the current field, and I'm not about to apologize because my ears prick up when Clark speaks. Maybe my six years in the Army did that to me... maybe not. At any rate, I'm all ears, and I want something, somebody, to believe in. I just want someone who can win.

We can take the moral and intelligensia highground all we want, but if we do, we'll lose. We'll be stuck with Four More Years of Bush/Cheney. Or is that Four More Wars?

Anyone but Bush,
Jennifer

[Pastiche423]

38. Not supporting Clark

does NOT equal four more years of *.

Btw, in case you have not been paying attention, there are Democratic candidates that have been standing up to *, in public forums for months now.

I want what is best for our country, and IMHO, it is not someone that has killing and/or promoting violence at the top of his resume.

Maybe that is the difference between this civilian that has seen far to much violence in her life and someone that chose the military.

[VolcanoJen]

39. I have seen the Dem candidates....

... and why is it a crime for me to be honest and forthright, in this progressive, democratic forum, to say that I am uninspired? And yes, I've looked at them carefully, and I've surprised even myself that I remain so undecided, so late in the game.

I've been to two Democratic National Conventions ('88 and '96) and I'm shocked at my own feelings, my own apathy, at the current field. Sure, that plays into Republican hands, and NeoCon spin, I guess, in a way, but if I'm not honest with myself, then what exactly is the point behind my involvement in party politics?

I have to do what feels right to me, Pastiche. Your arguments are persuasive and believe me, I'm listening. In fact, you're really helping me with my decision, whatever it may be. But my interest in Clark does not equate me with some sort-of militaristic facist war-mongering asshole. It just means I crave leadership, and Clark so far has been the only (potential) candidate that pushes my buttons.

It's such an emotional decision, and it's so very personal. It's difficult to keep personal decisions private when contributing to the boisterous DU forums, I know. But I simply won't feel bad because I dig Clark. And I most certainly don't feel that I'd be contradicting my own progressive and Democratic principles by supporting his candidacy.

I sure would feel a lot more comfortable if he'd come out of the closet about his political leanings, of course.

If Clark somehow received the Dem nomination, would you vote otherwise? If so, I'd be curious as to why you feel that way.

[Pastiche423]

40. IF Clark were to get the nomination

I would write-in the candidate of my choice. As to why I feel that way, see my #36 post.

[Jr_Samples]

62. Without the Nash Equilibrium Democrats are Doomed

A liberal who automatically rejects Wesley Clark because he is a military man is acting very much like a conservative.

FDR and Harry Truman killed hundreds of thousands the amount of people Wesley Clark did. Sure, the situations were different, but as indicated by my previous sentence, so are the figures.

Stop believing everything you see on some pseudo-educational TV channel. Geez, I thought liberals were supposed to be smart, educated, and open to varied ideas. Are we getting so desperate that we now act like the black-and-white stagnatists of the right wing? Didn't we all catch a glimpse of stubborn idealism from Nader 2000?

Although the opposite may be said of Conservatism, Liberalism fails when it begins to paint with broad strokes.

Let's start using a little risk management - a little Nash Equilibrium... you know, that concept the discoverer of which was the subject of last year's Best Picture? You know, the basis which disproves libertarians' claim to scientific validity?

"The best result comes from everyone in the group doing what is best for himself AND the group."

[Pastiche423]

65. Uh, what are the

"pseudo-educational TV channels"? Please enlighten me, oh wise one.

[Trek234]

44. "anyone call him unpatriotic"

He wouldn't "let them". And how exactly is he going to do that? Pull out an M16 and take them down?

This is why we don't need a general. He's going to be subject tp the same right wing rules as any other dem candidate.

Wouldn't let them... Best Clark propaganda I have heard to date.

[VolcanoJen]

46. Just like Howard Dean, I doubt Clark would cast a pro-war vote...

... just because Repubs call him "unpatriotic."

Both Dean and Clark have balls. Kerry and Edwards lost me on the war vote.

Of course, neither Dean nor Clark have been put in that position yet, so that remains to be seen. But I have some sort of faith that they'd stand up for their values in the face of the Patriot Police.

In Clark's case, how exactly does one call a decorated Vietnam Veteran and four-star General unpatriotic? Ought to be interesting.

[Trek234]

47. You think it can't be done?

Remember back in 2002 the guy who lost his limbs in Vietnam (can't recall his name at the moment) who lost the vote against a chicken hawk repub after the repubs managed to slaughter his name?

It can be done and they will do it - you can be sure of that.

[Pastiche423]

49. Max Cleland was called unpatriotic, wasn't he?

[VolcanoJen]

50. Yes, he was, and we cowered and allowed him to be beaten.

So, you're suggesting we should let that happen again?

Not on my watch,
Jennifer

[Pastiche423]

51. Pardon me?

How did "we" allow that to happen to Cleland? And just what in hell will Clark do to prevent that from happening to him? (I like the M16 idea, btw. lol)

[VolcanoJen]

54. Well, seeing as how I live in Ohio and can't vote in a Georgia...

.. senatorial election, I can't really take personal responsiblity for that.

I'll be damned, however, if the same thing happens to Clark, or Dean (even though he has no military record) or Kerry, or the others (who have fallen off the radar of most of us) in a national election in which I am qualified to vote.

What did you do to stop the Cleland smear in Georgia?

[Pastiche423]

55. Did I say that I did?

No, because there was nothing I could do. The same goes for Clark not being able to prevent it from happeming to him.

[Julien Sorel]

31. Clark has argued in favor of universal healthcare, by the way.

He has pointed out that they have it in the military, where it works well. He is quite progressive, more so than Dean, Lieberman, Edwards, or Graham, possible more so than Kerry.

Very nice argumentation, and you deserve kudos for your patience. Mine wore out long ago.

[Trek234]

45. Oh god...

"He has pointed out that they have it in the military, where it works well"

This is where the Clark supporters just DO NOT GET IT. This is NOT the military. You can't say "well hell it works in the military so it must work in the civilian sector!"

This is akin to Bush and Pals saying "Well it works in corporations so it must work in government!"

If this is truly how Clark is thinking - "It works in the military so..." - this proves my point that his total and utter lack of civilian political experience makes him woefully underqualified for the job.

[VolcanoJen]

48. Who's your candidate, Trek?

I'm just curious. Who pushes your buttons? And why do you hate a potential candidate who clearly pushes the buttons of many, many of your fellow DUers? Why not just lend him an ear, see if he runs, and then go into full attack mode?

Trust that I won't attack your personal political leanings, either. I'll leave that kind of nonsense to the ClarkBashers.

I'm genuinely interested in your candidate and why you feel so strongly, as I remain undecided and open-minded,
Jennifer

[Trek234]

56. Well...

If I could have my way it would be Kucinich in the oval office as he supports essentially what I support.

However, I would likely support all other candidates except Lieberman, Braun, and *perhaps* Dean. Dean looks good, but I would have to do some heavy research to make sure he is not a wolf among the sheep.

Even though I would support those candidates I would rather vote Green, and, being in Texas, I just might. That is unless there is some reason to believe Texas will go blue in 2004. Of course at that point it will probably be a land slide Bush loss.

Back to Clark. Here is what I don't like.

1. No civilian political experience. I'm sorry, but I see a HUGE disadvantage in doing this. You don't just go from never holding a political office to president of the united states in this day and age unless you have some major advantage points and popularity. (i.e. you just won WW2) It's like playing your first game of chess against a grand master.

2. Speaking of WW2... Some people think it logical to equate Clark with Eisenhower. (See, they were both Generals so...) I would say anyone who can't see the major difference between the popularity Eisenhower was riding on vs Clark need to get a good history book fast.

3. He has nothing in infrastructure compared to the other leading candidates. They have campaigns up and running, they have staff, they have donations, and they have endorsements. This is more of a threat to his primary success, however.

4. The money. Last I saw Bush has a quarter BILLION dollars to play with with the figure getting larger every day. This will probably be one of the Bush teams strongest factors. Sadly you have to have money to become president in this country. The other candidates have been fundraising as best they can. Clark has not even officially started doing so. (Also, he has already missed a federal matching fund period.)

5. Clark adds legitamacy to everything Bush stands for. Running Clark conceeds that dems are weak on defense, and everyone will see running a General for what it is.

6. Clarks military record will be shot to hell because he has baggage. (He will also be equated as a Clinton pal with all the other right wing talking points in that regard) There is already somewhat credible evidence that he may be responsible for many civilian deaths. True or not the repub media will have a field day with this info. Come the election he will probably commonly be referred to as a war criminal. This is worse than any other story I can see played on any other candidate. Remember the Bush money will be going to this propaganda campaign, among others. If the repubs could do this to a Vietnam vet who lost his limbs in a non-presidential election they sure as hell will do it to Clark.

7. In relating to point 6 - *Don't forget as the current president bush can pull some military files regarding Clark to add more fuel to the fire.* God knows what they could dig up.

8. I have personal reservations about electing a General. (ex or not) Please, don't compare this to Washington either because then and now have little to nothing in common.

9. Factually Clark can't be said to provide defense. This is so because 1. He has never provided national defense to the US. He handled foreign ops against people with absolutely no chance against the power of the US/NATO alliance. This talking point will be driven home hard. 2. Just because one was a General does NOT mean they can provide for national security at home as a civilian president.

10. Conceeding the defense point above - I tend to agree that the defense factor will be LESS important than the economy and other national issues. The ONLY way I see this changing would be if we had another 9/11 or worse. But then again at that time point 9 above still applies, and Bush will probably get massive support IF it is played right.

11. Finally - the WORST propaganda ever, I know - but Bush has his damn "war hero" BS going for him. Ask most americans and they will probably say he served in Vietnam and was a fighter pilot war hero. This immediatly cancels out any "war hero" status we may try to pull with Clark.

*on edit: I could perhaps see Clark as a potential VP...

And on antoher point - a lot of what I have heard him say I really don't like. I either don't agree with it, or I find it odd.

Another point - He has no political history to follow either, so I can never ben sure of him.

Nor has he done anything for the democratic party directly. Where as even Lieberman has done something. Has ever campaigned for us? Ever go up against the right wing talking points? I don't see how he deserves the party nomination for president of the united states over other democrats.

[LimpingLib]

70. I STRONLY disagree with point #6 (and the reasons are scary)

"Clarks military record will be shot to hell" ... "will be refered to as a war criminal"

Sadly I dont think anybody but people like ..um Ramsey Clark (there is a general we should be wanting to run FYI), Chomsky , and well me (lol)will challenge his deplorable record.

The GOP would be nuts to challenge clark and infact they LOVE having Democrats who are just as bad as them on military policy . It legitimises what they do plus kills any enthusiasm at the grass roots to expose Clarks record. Demoralises the entire left. That will not stop them from calling clark a "liberal" mind you . They will still beat the "left wing extremist" drumb 24/7 and it will infact move the goal posts further right.

No Democatic Presidntial canidates will challenge Clark on his record. Kucinich would but he is muted and blacked out . cant hear a word from him and he is marginalized.

Dont confuse the common since and well researched truth telling of many hear at DU with what will be talked about in a national discussion. We are like the only ones who will talk about Clarks record. Plus the sad fact is that most Democrats supported the Yugoslavia war so their isnt any party infrastructure built to expose the dreadful excesses that Clark and Clark alone was responsible for. Frankly little opposition was pesent with the Iraq war from Democrats but the fact that it was a Republican president plus the fact that the pre war was so overly politicized by the right wing and such a diplomatic disgrace that Democrats couldnt avoid being at least somewhat critical. The GOPs anti patriotism charges have now left them with egg on their face when many questions raised (albeit quietly and sparsely by some Democrats)have proven to be well justified . The post war has been a disgrace. Anyway many national Democratswith political aspirations have promoted watered down right wing policys for too long and Deans surge shows that their has been a refutation of that. The problem is that Dean's stance is little more than rhetorical wallpaper. He wont have any problem with Clarks past record.

I hate to say it but we progressives better take inventory and realize that we need to fight like hell and shine a light on our own Democratic leaders as much as or more than anybody else. At least when the GOP goes on a diplomatic rampage combined with excessive military policy then we get energized and start to fight. If we get conned into nominating a shrewd Democrate who sounds the right rhetorical notes but is a wolf in sheeps clothing (clearly Clark is Dean Im not so sure at least he will owe alot to his progressive base and might govern like he talks perhaps)the it will just kill our grass roots energy and set us back both politicaly and especially on national policy.

[Julien Sorel]

57. Uhhh, no.

This is where hysterics like yourself do not get it. I pointed out that Clark believes in universal healthcare, because he has seen it work. You run off and, in your mindless hysteria, begin attributing things to me that I neither said, nor believe.

You have amply demonstrated throughout this thread that you reason with a simpleton's mind; do not compound that flaw by projecting it onto others.

[Trek234]

58. Give me a break

See my list of points above.

Anyway - you said QUOTE "He has pointed out that they have it in the military, where it works well."

That certainly sounds like saying that it works in the military, so it will work in the civilian sector.

"I pointed out that Clark believes in universal healthcare, because he has seen it work."

The problem is WHERE you said he has seen it work.

If the above is not true, why did you make it a point to say "they have it in the military, where it works well"? Obviously because you were saying it works in the military so it will work elsewhere. If you conceed this point then your entire original post means nothing and should never have even been posted.

Nice job trying to cover your self though. I guess the editing period expired on your other post so you couldn't complete the job.

[Julien Sorel]

60. LOL

You are really something. I think the 'simpleton's mind' comment was actually too generous.

And here I was feeling guilty about it.

Nobody said that just because universal healthcare works in the military, it will work elsewhere exactly the way it does in the military -- that's your straw man. The point is that, Clark has seen it work, and has commented favorably on the concept. Only a complete moron (ahem...) believes that one can order the implementation of something like universal healthcare and make it work by fiat. Clark might be a genocidal, ruthless killer who is secretly a plant for KKKKarl Rove, and a closet Republican to boot, but nobody has called him stupid yet.

The rest of your 'points' are similarly combinations of ignorance, dishonesty, and hysteria to varying degrees.

[tjdee]

64. Or akin to "This is how I did it in Vermont"?

Where there are less people than many major cities?

OH, okay. I understand that.

[Jr_Samples]

61. Are You A Mole?

"Its all documented . Cant be blamed on anybody else." (Black and white, wouldn't you say?)

"origonal"

"rotton"

"nickle"

LimpingLib, are you really a liberal?

From its overall structure to its pesky misspellings, your writing style seems suspiciously conservative.

:)

[LimpingLib]

66. I didnt mean to imply anybody was GOP earlier (was misunderstood)

My point was that many progressives thought McCain was great and infact crossed over to vote for him.And the fact that a theoretical McCain/ Gore match up would result in a bloodbath (McCain led Gore 57%-35% while Bush's lead was only 7% around the time many progressives were crossing over to vote for McCain in open primarys)meant that it was clearly a bad strategy to vote for him.

And The Discovery New York Times channel has like a 3 hour documentary on the Yugoslavia war running repeatily THIS WEEK . Watch it and you will see the war strategy recollection between Clinton , Clark , Chirac ,etc. and ALL were interviewed . You will agree that straight from the horses mouth what I said earlier was pretty cut and dry.

And Im scratching my head to think of any issue Im actualy conservative on . If anything maybe it is some pork barrel legislation but I dont even find that to be a left/right issue . Im a pure populist and civil libertarian (except perhaps on guns but still states can decide their own laws though Im Pro gun control)so i suppose some of my civil libertarian stands might not be something many congressional Democrats support but that doesnt make me conservative (I dunno). Im internationalist but usually anti war and think wage and labor protections are important (infact the only way for other nations economys to grow beyond their pathetic state is if we require a minninum wage in nations we trade with plus would help our economy to have people in other nations like China and Mexico actualy be able to afford our products). O I thought of something that usually only the far right supports (like 2 dozen GOP conservatives in the house albeit none in the Senate) and I do as well :axing the IMF. There you have it.

AS for my spelling........ good attack . Now prepare to get clobbered quite hard when you make mistakes . Hope you enjoy looking over your shoulder.

[fishnfla]

72. you write like a freeper

exactly. the poor syntax and misspellings take away from your arguments. its sad, and unfair, but true. take a class or something.

[LimpingLib]

73. Lets try to stay on topic. (Clark)

I dont like to talk about myself but the fact that I was misunderstood earlier (probabily my fault as many seemed to think I was accusing sombody of being or voting GOP)left me open to attacks . Something I would NEVER do is question somebody elses views as anybody who listens to me knows Im ideologicaly ambiguous and those who are used to toeing the standard DNC line find some of the things I say intolerable . It happens all the time . What got me in trouble this time was that it sounded like I fired the first shot.

Anyway enough about me (and o yea I got good grades in English courses but one out of school I found that to save time I should just type and generally not edit or arrange sentences just quickly make my point).I also generaly only get this abrasive in general Discussion where the topic flys by fast and as few people as possible can see and remember it was me typing all these horrible things (he he).

Again enough about me. This is a serious issue here and I really hate to see such premature excitment over a canidate we know little about (and I wont repeat how troubling the man is on what we do know about him).

[neverforget]

20. Rotten apple? what the hell do you call Bush?!

In case you haven't noticed, Bush is the enemy. :grr:

[LimpingLib]

22. Going by your attitude I guess you were...

... one of the ones who crossed over to vote for McCain who not only was guaranteed to clobber Gore (he lead Gore by 22%)but would have certainly been at least as right wing as Bush plus would have no trouble being re elected in 2004 . Roe V Wade wouldnt have stood a chance till like 2030 if mcCain were president till 2009 .

Glad I disagreed with your ilk then and glad I do now.

[neverforget]

33. Uh, yeah, whatever. I voted for the winner, Al Gore.

There's only one thing worse than 4 years of Bush and that would be another 4 years. I'll vote for whoever the nominee is, even Lieberman. Anybody but Bush!

[VolcanoJen]

34. Don't ever give up, neverforget

And thanks for not letting someone get away with accusing you of voting Republican!!!!

:-)
Jennifer

[LimpingLib]

53. I didnt doubt you voted Gore BUT...

... you and I know that many on the left just worshipped McCain simply because there was a hero image and bandwagon created by the media. Many crossed over to vote for him. Infact it buried Bill Bradley in New Hampshire where he would have defeated Gore had it not been for the media telling everybody to cross over and vote McCain.

The worshipping of a man where his views havnt been shared yet reminds me of people on the left worshipping (and they still do listen to Jenene Garflo)McCain despite the fact that he is a homophobic , warmongering , anti abortion conservative and people simply failed to study his stances on the issues nor did they listen to his bigoted "straight talk".

What little stances Clark has taken have shown his prioritys . He showed his ignorance when he anwsered a question about tax policy on MTP in 2 ways . He said (paraphraise almost quote) "one of the principles our country was founded on was progressive taxation" and went on to say why he supported our current tax structure. First of all our present tax structure is regressive and he simply didnt acknowledge that nor would he change it apparantly . The top 400 taxpayers only paid 22.3% of their income in taxes in 2001 and that was before Bush's big tax cuts now it would be closer to 18% for these fat cats making over $170 million per year . The poor pay 15.3% in Payroll Taxes plus about 6% in sales taxes. Dozens of corperations pay no income taxes and dozens more pay under 5% . State income taxes are regressive or flat at best and Californi for example could almost have a balanced budget if a law was passed saying that the wealthy would have to pay as much in taxes as the poor do as a percentage of their income. Second is that our nation was founded as a democracy (or democratic republic) which allowed the workers to balance the playing field with the robber baron wealthy but income taxation was at 0 across the board at our nations founding . Clark is just plain wrong. He doesnt realize the democracy was a tool to fight the cast system with its pecking order as was the reality in Brittain . The man just doesnt seem to know much about fighting against powerful corrupt interests nor does he care. And Ill never forgive him for perpetuating the GOPs myth that the wealthy pay more in taxes I bet they just loved his commentary on our tax system.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

59. The "Hysterical Left" Strikes Again

The worshipping of a man where his views havnt been shared yet reminds me of people on the left worshipping (and they still do listen to Jenene Garflo)McCain despite the fact that he is a homophobic , warmongering , anti abortion conservative and people simply failed to study his stances on the issues nor did they listen to his bigoted "straight talk".

Clark is much, much better than McCain, in practically every respect. To say your comparison is weak would be to give it far too much credit.

What little stances Clark has taken have shown his prioritys . He showed his ignorance when he anwsered a question about tax policy on MTP in 2 ways . He said (paraphraise almost quote) "one of the principles our country was founded on was progressive taxation"

NOTE: I am not calling you a Republican. I do want to make sure you realize, however, that you are parroting a Republican anti-Clark talking point.

and went on to say why he supported our current tax structure.

He went on to say he supported rolling back Shrub's giveaway to the rich. And yes, he probably does support a PROGRESSIVE tax structure roughly similar to what we have now. Name one Democratic candidate whose position on taxes is better than Clark's.

And if you want ANY Democratic candidate to take a position more progressive than that...you'd better keep on dreaming. Socialism, or anything close, just isn't going to fly in the United States.

While your head is apparently in the clouds, the rest of us will keep our feet on the ground and work with reality.

DTH

[LimpingLib]

67. My comparison was right on.

People act like any "respected" gung-ho military man should automaticaly be patronized as a saint and elevated above all others. And many on the left dont have a clue what the hell they are talking about when they say how great Clark and McCain are. I set my VCR and on Crossfire Garflo said McCain and Clark should run on the same ticket. Garflo might be a liberal but I will feel free to say how ignorant she is.I remember I was depressed to no end to hear hers and others ignorance during the iraq war leadup . I strongly opposed the war but the rational many were giving for opposing the war was nonsence. She actually said it could take up to 2 months to win the war. And many echoed that . Absurd!!! Everybody who knew the facts knew it would be over lightening fast . 75% of the Arab population were of the Shia branch (whom Saddm bitterly persecuted) and the terrain was flat and treeless and Saddams troops were poorly trained . Only 5 million Sunnites in the nation meant Saddam was toast (even Iran while their military was dissolved cut right through the South and North of Iraq in the 80s and would have ended Saddams rule had we not intervined and gave Hussein bio weapons and Iranian troop positions)should any half decent army invade.

And the GOP attacks Clark for their own reaons. I frankly dont care . They probabily will try to portray him a being " too liberal" like they do to any Democrat. Again I frankly dont care .

Clark talks a good game on taxation.Even sounds like he supports a progressive tax system . I do to but it depends on what you mean by "progressive" . If you mean the current tax system where loopholes and corperate exemptions and corperate welfare on INCOME taxes is "progressive" then I have seen many Democrats take a better stance than him. Especially Gephardt who has tried in the past to implement a tax system where there are no loopholes . The payroll tax stops at $85,000 so any million $ income earner wont pay much of anything there but the poor and middle class have a flat 15.3% burden with NO LOOPHOLES . Look on a pie chart and you will see the payroll tax is about as large as the percentage of the federal budget as income taxes (both are about 40%) .The difference is the wealthy have endless loopholes for THEIR tax (income) and the poor have no loopholes for their tax (payroll). And I have a feeling Clarks "universal healthcare" plan relys on tax credits which for the poorest Americans will be usless since tax credits usually only apply for income taxes. I await his plan but till then he just speaks generalitys.

And unless a canidate advocats cutting defence or corperate welfare then it will remain that the budget will have little money left over for programs when interest , defense , and tax loopholes / corperate welfare take up about 70% of the budget (highway funds and SS and Medicare are self funded by payroll and gas taxes). Maybe a very modest health care plan (VERY modest)but thats it.

I await real issue stances by Wesley Clark . Would be nice if we got them before people jump on his band wagon.

[Wendec]

63. Not quite true

I certainly respect your right not to support Clark, but in the interest of accuracy, here is what he said about taxation on Meet the Press:
------------------------------------------
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of the Bush tax cuts? Would you have voted for them?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I would not have supported them, no.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not?
GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.
So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no.
--------------------------------------------------

Which part of that answer is inconsistent with what you would like to see?

[LimpingLib]

68. He gives incomplete anwsers at best.

Sure we dont like the Bush tax cuts but it only a continuation of our tax policy from the last 20+ years . Be can easily look like a "good Democrat" and criticise the latest Bush tax cuts but lets put it into proportion. Taxes on the top income earners were 70% till Regan cut them down to 50% in the early 80s and then down to 28% in the 1986 . They got bumped up a little to 39% in the early 90s.

So we went from 70% down to 39% . Now Bush's latest tax cuts reduced them down to around 32% when fully implemented (for those making over $190,000 ) and those making in the $90,000 to $190,000 got a good cut themselves despite the fact that they pay less than 30% before loopholes and exemptions. (They have smaller payroll tax burdens as well and those at the top rate have little to no Payroll tax burdens as a percentage of their income) .

Clark stops after he criticises the presidents latest cuts. Doesnt say anything about the unfair system or the loopholes and corperate welfare that guts the tax burden on the wealthy. Doesnt say anything about the already low marginal rates that is both running up debt and limiting the amount of social programs and unding. Doesnt say anything about the bloated "deffense" budget . Infact Clark sounds all too content with the current system.

He can feel free to prove me wrong. Where are his clear issue stances?

[TacticalPeek]

16. Hot Diggity Damn!

Thanks a million, Gert!

Everything is spec, but I swear we would have the chance to change the political landscape. Good bye and good riddance, Nixon/Wallace Southern strategy!

[tjdee]

18. The 19th! Oy!

I'm glad his wife seems to be onboard now....

I'm not fully on board the Clark wagon (in fact, I'm still firmly on the Edwards wagon), but I will be delighted to have him run and actually address some of the problems that DUers have with him.

[0rganism]

21. How many candidates is too many?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Clark shouldn't run, but if the Democratic primary ballot looks too much like the California Recall ballot, there are going to be some frustrated voters.

There are only nine rings for mortal men. Someone's got to go.

[samsingh]

25. JOIN ALREADY!

[meisje]

26. do it man with no more slack-n-off!

n/t

[VolcanoJen]

35. ClarkWatchers: Don't Miss This LBN Thread!

More evidence that insiders predict a run.

Good stuff here, in a seperate LBN Thread by Freddie Stubbs:

Clark likely to run, says Democratic panel chief (Terry McAuliffe)

[Trek234]

41. Shit

Four more years here we come.

[Doctor Panacea]

52. You cannot have everything your way

Oh, blah, blah ... All of this whining is silly.

The ONLY candidates who can beat the Republican-corporate crime syndicate are DEAN and CLARK.

The others are geldings and insiders. They inspire nobody outside of their own partisans, most of whom are longstanding supporters.

The ticket in 2004 will be Dean/Clark, President/VP, and it will win.

[Voltaire99]

69. Run, civilian killer, run!

Ultra-triangulated centrists are pining for a man in boots!

(Serbian families, meanwhile, are pining for their loved ones...)

[ima_sinnic]

71. "delaying . . . until he feels he has a legitimate chance of winning"

er, as they say about Lotto, you can't win if you don't play. Gee, Wesley, be careful, if you stick your neck out you COULD get your head cut off. sheesh.

NOT AT ALL IMPRESSED WITH CLARK. Ties to PNAC/AEI, ties to George Soros, evidence of influence-peddling for Acxiom, well-orchestrated schemes in "pro-Clark" blogs to sow disinformation & divisiveness re the other candidates (implying professional plants--a RW plot), absolutely zip for political experience, lack of enough guts even to openly declare a party affiliation--

and a MYSTERIOUS PHONE CALL from someone "in the White House" or thereabouts (?)--(WHY WON'T HE COME CLEAN ON THIS??)--asking him to lie and say 9/11 and Iraq are linked.

Nobody calls Dean asking him to tell lies and that's the way I like it. An "outsider" is the only way to get clean of PNAC/AEI scum.

[jamesinca]

74. At the time of the call he was head of NATO

"and a MYSTERIOUS PHONE CALL from someone "in the White House" or thereabouts (?)--(WHY WON'T HE COME CLEAN ON THIS??)--asking him to lie and say 9/11 and Iraq are linked."


They wanted to link his name and credibility to an Iraq based plot, he did not do it, so I applaude him there. There is a certain time and place to reveal sources, and that time is not at hand. I do think it was wrong for the WH to reveal the name of a CIA operative. Now that that is done, has the WH done anything to discipline the person, no. That is the failing of the WH. Clark may not leak his sources, but when running that type of thing you need to take the responsibility to police your own people. I don't see this coming from the WH. They have exposed CIA agents and asked Generals to lie and they do nothing to correct this.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

What are his links to AEI and PNAC do you have a link?